Legal Opinion

Ex parte Cudd

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 13, 1916PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Original petition in Supreme Court. J. J. Cudd petitions for mandamus to compel the stay of execution for costs pending an appeal from a decree cancelling a mortgage.

1Opinion of the Court

GARDNER, J.(1) The petition in this case shows that one V. A. Reynolds filed a case against J. J. Cudd (the petitioner here) and L. R. Reynolds, the husband of the complainant, seeking the cancellation of a certain mortgage executed by complainant and her husband to said Cudd. The complainant was successful, and decree was rendered canceling the mortgage; res*81pondent Cudd being taxed with the costs of the suit. The decree required the performance of no act of the respondent. Execution for costs was issued under said decree against Cudd, who perfected his appeal to this court by giving proper…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Montgomery Gas Light Co. v. Merrick & SonsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
  2. Ex parte HoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  3. Stewart v. HoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
  4. Northern v. HannersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Kinney v. WhiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  2. City of Decatur v. MeadorsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1938
  3. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. GanttSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
  4. Ex Parte State Ex Rel. SullivanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1955
  5. Berryhill v. GibsonDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 1971

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API